Public Policies and Management of Rural Forests : Lasting

Copyright © 2013 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance. Michon, G., R. Nasi, and G. Balent. 2013. Public policies and management of rural forests: lasting alliance or fool's dialogue? Ecology and Society 18(1): 30. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05706-180130 Guest Editorial, part of a Special Feature on Public policies and management of rural forests: lasting alliance or fool’s dialogue? Public Policies and Management of Rural Forests: Lasting Alliance or Fool's Dialogue? Genevieve Michon 1, Robert Nasi 2 and Gérard Balent 3 ABSTRACT. Most people in forest and rural areas manage trees as part of their livelihood systems. The resulting “domestic” or “rural” forests are distinct from conventional forest. They have historically been overlooked by the forestry sector and impacted by forest policies and regulatory frameworks. These forests presently encounter requalification and valuation dynamics, fueled by a sustainable development ideology, and induced by both public powers and local communities. These dynamics move in two different directions: the naturalization of rural forests by policy makers, and their politization by rural people. We draw on long-term research experiences in France, Morocco, Southeast Asia, and Africa on forests managed by “farmers”, among which some are analyzed in the Ecology and Society Feature, Public policies and management of rural forests: lasting alliance or fool’s dialogue?. We first elaborate on domestication, analyzed at tree, ecosystems and landscape levels, as a concept allowing for a better understanding of the specific relationships developed between rural people and forests. We then engage in a critical review of how forest-related and sustainable development policies consider rural forests, and discuss how they address (or do not address) their specificity and encourage (or do not encourage) their development. Key Words: domestication; forestry regulations; local forest management; patrimony; political ecology; public policies; resilience INTRODUCTION All over the planet and throughout history, people have been Fig. 1. Rural forests: Argan forest in Morocco (above), managing trees as part of their agricultural activities and chestnut forest in Corsica (middle), farmers’ forest in livelihoods. This is obvious in Europe where rural landscapes France (below) integrate various forest patches: small woodlots intertwined with fields, isolated trees in pastures and linear forests bordering grass fields (Balent 1996, Baudry and Jouin 2003). This is less conspicuous in areas with relatively continuous forest landscapes, such as in tropical forests, Mediterranean bushland, or wooded savannas and steppes in Africa, where it is easier to deny the positive role of local farmers in shaping the forest ecosystem (Balée 1998, Fairhead and Leach 1996, Simenel 2011) (Fig. 1 and 2). The resulting “rural forests” appear as somewhat distinct from conventional forests; they exhibit common characteristics from North to South, though are rather contrasted as far as tree species, ecosystem structure, management practices or underlying institutions are concerned (Génin et al. 2013). The major distinction is that they are the product of planned farming and are attached to the domestic economies in the surrounding areas. But because they are forests, they are still often impacted at a national scale by forest policies and regulatory frameworks. These policies and associated forest management regimes are devised to manage forest domains in the name of the State but are not meant to incorporate the interests and logics of rural forests. They have therefore contributed to the concealment of the realities of rural forest management, led to global misinterpretation of its importance and characteristics, and impeded its development. 1IRD, 2CIFOR, 3INRA, France Ecology and Society 18(1): 30 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss1/art30/ would acquire legitimacy and be integrated in a renewed rural Fig. 2. Rural forests: Agroforests in Indonesia (above) with development? damar (Shorea javanica) (left) and rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) (right), Agroforests in India with coffee Drawing on long-term research experiences in France, (below) Morocco, Southeast Asia, and Africa on forests managed by “farmers” (shifting cultivators, settled farmers, and/or seminomadic shepherds), and following authors in these specific fields, we elaborate on concepts for a better understanding of the specific relationships that have evolved between rural people and forests, ecosystems and landscapes. We then engage in a critical review of how forest-related and sustainable development policies consider forests, in general, and discuss how they address (or do not address) the specificity of rural forests and encourage (or do not encourage) their development. Fig. 3. Sustainable development initiatives in rural forests: Geographical Indication for rural forest products (pork meat in the Spanish dehesa: above left, chestnut flour in Corsica: above right, argan oil in Morocco: below right) or Community Forestry in Cameroon (below left) Precisely because of (or despite) that, rural forests constitute highly resilient social-ecological systems. For centuries, rural forests have resisted national forestry frameworks that have tried to limit local forest-related practices and expel farmers from the forest. Rural forests have survived agricultural intensification and modernization that have attempted to eliminate trees from agricultural landscapes in order to rationalize local production patterns. Today, in many places in the world, outmigration from rural areas and related transformation of rural lands favor their extension or rejuvenation. These forests therefore constitute a good entry point for understanding the role public policies play in the resilience of social-ecological systems and how they may RURAL LANDSCAPES: DOMESTICATING THE encourage or discourage a path towards sustainability. ORIGINAL FOREST? Rural forests are not typically managed from a professional The failure of capitalistic agriculture and the global economic forestry perspective. Their existence relies on specific crisis put rural forests back in the heart of economic strategies practices and their design incorporates strong livelihood and in many rural areas, through various valuation processes social dimensions (Sauget 1994, Wiersum 1997). They have supported by a sustainable development ideology. Some of evolved from long-standing and complex domestication these processes are locally born and carried out by local actors: processes targeting trees, ecosystems and landscapes (Michon territorial qualification of forest products (chestnuts in et al. 2007). southern Europe, pork meat from the dehesa forests in Spain) and the revival of abandoned forest productions (black truffles Domesticating trees in southern France). Others are designed through a top-down Practices on trees range from light manipulations (favoring approach: support of “community forests” (Cameroon) or selected individuals in untouched forests and selectively “tribal forests” (India) and product certification (argan oil in weeding around them) to strong interventions (planting, Morocco) (Fig. 3). Does this then illustrate a reversal of pruning, breeding, grafting). historical trends and a turn towards a future where these forests Ecology and Society 18(1): 30 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss1/art30/ At the far end of this spectrum, domestication is obvious. In producers, and therefore the strongest reproducers and southern Europe, chestnut trees (Castanea sativa) are the the best stocks for grafting (Michon 2011). “most humanized of all European forest trees” (Michon 2011) ● It relates the tree to the human sphere through the and have been domesticated since the Middle Ages. The immaterial practices of domestication. In chestnut domestication process has followed a classical development orchards as well as in the argan forest, venerable trees pattern: selection in the wild, plantation, selection of the most are given names, and family or village histories are linked desirable individuals in cultivated stands and finally, to them (Dupré 2002, Simenel 2011). In that respect, they reproduction of the selected varieties by grafting. Today, one enter the domestic circle of village families and are the single village in a chestnut-producing area may hold dozens representations of their collective memory. Such of local varieties. diversity, induced by selection practices at the tree level, But for most tree species in rural forests, domestication is locally highly valued. In chestnut areas, villages’ remains more or less invisible, like for the holm-oak of dehesas identity and pride are related to the array of their chestnut (Linares 2007), or néré (Parkia biglobosa) and karité varieties that contribute to the specific flavor of the (Vitellaria paradoxa) in African parklands (Boffa 1999). The chestnut flour (Michon 2011). Argan farmers classify and argan tree (Argania spinosa) in southern Morocco is also name eight tree categories related to the tree’s size and considered “wild”. The high variety of shapes and architecture, architecture. They also use a highly refined terminology from large trees in fields to tortured individuals which goats that defines the type and quality of fruits and “provides climb for foraging, or rock-like shrubs in heavily grazed areas, indices of a long term domestication process” (Génin and is generally attributed to the combination of natural

Load more